Xeon 3.6 vs Ryzen 5 2400G
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1389 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.97 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 8.17 | no data |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | no data |
| Architecture codename | Raven Ridge (2017−2019) | Irwindale (2004) |
| Release date | 12 February 2018 (7 years ago) | June 2004 (21 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $169 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 2400G and Xeon 3.6 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3.6 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Multiplier | 36 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96 KB (per core) | 16 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 210 mm2 | 169 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4,950 million | 178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 2400G and Xeon 3.6 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | AM4 | 604 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 135 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 2400G and Xeon 3.6. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 2400G and Xeon 3.6 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 2400G and Xeon 3.6. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 46.933 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 ( - 1250 MHz) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 2400G and Xeon 3.6.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 12 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 8 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 135 Watt |
Ryzen 5 2400G has 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, a 542.9% more advanced lithography process, and 107.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between AMD Ryzen 5 2400G and Intel Xeon 3.6. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Ryzen 5 2400G is a desktop processor while Xeon 3.6 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
